Ralph Nader is in my dictionary and encyclopedia

[h.g.Whiz]

I'm voting Ralph Nader. If you don't Know who he is Look up his name in the dictionary. If you don't know of his accomplishments look in the the World Book Encyclopedia. He appears in both 20 years ago. You won't find the other two candidates there. The only text that I have that doesn't have him is school text book on U.S. History, its funny that it does mentions all the things he did but does not mention his name. Its as if our government is taking credit for improvements they were forced to make because of Nader

[Tsukasa Buddha]

That's a stupid way of picking a president.

Nader should have stopped when he began running as an independent. The third parties nominate someone else and it dilutes the radical vote.

Of course, I may still vote for him as a parody protest, but I find him to be a very unremarkable candidate.

Oh, and his website sucks.

[Axiom_Blade]

What, you mean somebody's not impressed with the "Maverick", or Mr. "Hope and Change"?
I'm shocked!

[chipmunk stew]

A great consumer advocate does not a great president make.

How can anyone take a person seriously who actually believed that there was no substantial difference between Bush and Gore?

Nader threw himself under the bus with that line.

[DC]

A great consumer advocate does not a great president make.

How can anyone take a person seriously who actually believed that there was no substantial difference between Bush and Gore?

Nader threw himself under the bus with that line.

there is a substantial difference between republicans and democrats?

[chipmunk stew]

there is a substantial difference between republicans and democrats?
There is a substantial difference between a Republican and a Republican, if you pick the right Republicans.

Nader wasn't commenting broadly about Democrats and Republicans. He was commenting on a specific Democrat and a specific Republican.

Do you disagree that there is a substantial difference between Bush and Gore?

[Axiom_Blade]

Do you disagree that there is a substantial difference between Bush and Gore?

Was it Ralph Nader's job to help Gore get elected?
Do you disagree that there is a substantial difference between Bush, Gore, and Nader?

I like to turn the Democratic Party's accusations back on them.
Would we be in Iraq right now if Nader had been elected president?
Why didn't Kerry drop out of the election, and endorse Nader?
Think what a different country we'd be in right now...

Imagine if all the Nader voters wrote impassioned pleas to Obama to drop out of the race so that Nader could win.

[dudalb]

It's really scary the way some people decide who to vote for.
Nader is a joke, except for a small group of True Beleivers.

[Axiom_Blade]

It's really scary the way some people decide who to vote for.
Nader is a joke, except for a small group of True Beleivers.

I decide by researching each candidate, and weighing their positions and values against my own.
How do you do it?

[dudalb]

Was it Ralph Nader's job to help Gore get elected?
Do you disagree that there is a substantial difference between Bush, Gore, and Nader?

I like to turn the Democratic Party's accusations back on them.
Would we be in Iraq right now if Nader had been elected president?
Why didn't Kerry drop out of the election, and endorse Nader?
Think what a different country we'd be in right now...

.

Is it a requirment to ignore reality to be a Nader supporter?
And America would be worse off is Nader was elected, since I feel his obvious hostility to the Free Market would have resulted in economic disaster a lot worse then anything we are having now.

[chipmunk stew]

Was it Ralph Nader's job to help Gore get elected?
Do you disagree that there is a substantial difference between Bush, Gore, and Nader?
Erm... No and no.

My point is, Nader lost all credibility and threw away his legacy when he repeatedly claimed that there was no difference between voting for Bush and voting for Gore. That's when he jumped the shark, transforming himself from a champion of the people to a king of the cranks.

[Axiom_Blade]

And America would be worse off is Nader was elected, since I feel his obvious hostility to the Free Market would have resulted in economic disaster a lot worse then anything we are having now.

I've never heard Nader say anything against the free market, just corrupt corporations.
This article (http://www.essential.org/features/corporatesocialism.html) sheds more light on what his position is (which, interestingly, isn't much different from many Libertarians'!):

Under capitalism, businesses are supposed to sink or swim, which is still very true for small business. But larger industries and companies often have become "too big to fail" and demand that Uncle Sam serve as their all-purpose protector, providing a variety of public guarantees and emergency bailouts. Yes, some wildly looted companies that are expendable, such as Enron, cannot avail themselves of governmental salvation and do go bankrupt or are bought. By and large, however, in industry after industry where two or three companies dominate or presage a domino effect, Washington becomes their backstop.

"Corporate socialism" -- the privatization of profit and the socialization of risks and misconduct -- is displacing capitalist canons. This condition prevents an adaptable capitalism, served by equal justice under law, from delivering higher standards of living and enlarging its absorptive capacity for broader community and environmental values. Civic and political movements must call for a decent separation of corporation and state.

Incidentally, do you actually feel the US would've been worse off under 8 years of Nader, than 8 years of Bush?

[chipmunk stew]

Incidentally, do you actually feel the US would've been worse off under 8 years of Nader, than 8 years of Bush?
It wouldn't have made any difference. They're just two sides of the same coin.







:D

[Axiom_Blade]

My point is, Nader lost all credibility and threw away his legacy when he repeatedly claimed that there was no difference between voting for Bush and voting for Gore.

So, his whole life's work amounts to nothing because he was allegedly wrong about Bush? Who CARES? That was 7 years ago! The Democrats will attack him over that, because they can't argue any issues with him.

Has the Democratic party lost any credibility for all the lies and dirty tricks they used against Nader in 2004?

[chipmunk stew]

So, his whole life's work amounts to nothing because he was allegedly wrong about Bush? Who CARES? That was 7 years ago!
What has he done since then?

[dudalb]

I decide by researching each candidate, and weighing their positions and values against my own.
How do you do it?


The same, but I try to support somebody who has at least a little chance of winning, even if I do not agree with him on everything.
Politics is the art of the possible. Something the True Believers forget.

[dudalb]

What has he done since then?

Totally marginalize himself in US politics, except for the faithful few...very few, and getting fewer.

[fuelair]

I'm voting Ralph Nader. If you don't Know who he is Look up his name in the dictionary. If you don't know of his accomplishments look in the the World Book Encyclopedia. He appears in both 20 years ago. You won't find the other two candidates there. The only text that I have that doesn't have him is school text book on U.S. History, its funny that it does mentions all the things he did but does not mention his name. Its as if our government is taking credit for improvements they were forced to make because of Nader
I do know who the egotistical slime who put his Impossible Dream against the actual needs of the US and helped Shrub steal the 2000 election. What he did that was good was fully wiped out by that 4 years before he ran again - asked by loads of those who realized (finally) the harm their "hero" did not to - to feed his still bloated ego. He's useless slime - not even worth being walked on.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The same, but I try to support somebody who has at least a little chance of winning, even if I do not agree with him on everything.
Politics is the art of the possible. Something the True Believers forget.

Wait, I thought Obama supporters were the True Believers...

This Nader is clearly a false prophet who must be sentenced to death.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Nader has apparrently did:

"It Happened in the Kitchen: Recipes for Food and Thought"
"Why Women Pay More" (with Frances Cerra Whittelsley)
"Children First! A Parent's Guide to Fighting Corporate Predators"
"The Seventeen Traditions" Regan Books, 2007. ISBN 0061238279
Citizen Power: A Mandate for Change by Mike Gravel, 2008. Foreword by Ralph Nader.

Well.... *twitch*

[Axiom_Blade]

I do know who the egotistical slime who put his Impossible Dream against the actual needs of the US and helped Shrub steal the 2000 election. What he did that was good was fully wiped out by that 4 years before he ran again - asked by loads of those who realized (finally) the harm their "hero" did not to - to feed his still bloated ego. He's useless slime - not even worth being walked on.

Troll or not?
Anyway, I can't wait to see what happens to the Democratic Party after they lose again this year. It'll be funny to see who or what they blame it on, but I really hope it's the end for them.

[Axiom_Blade]

Totally marginalize himself in US politics, except for the faithful few...very few, and getting fewer.

And the significance of this is...what?
If you're right, you're right.
I'd still vote for him, if I was his only vote. The best candidate is not always the most popular. This is something that fans of "Rock Star" Obama are starting to realize.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I love how people keep saying that without even really parsing what that must imply.

[fuelair]

Troll or not?
Anyway, I can't wait to see what happens to the Democratic Party after they lose again this year. It'll be funny to see who or what they blame it on, but I really hope it's the end for them.11,000+ posts, no suspensions or bannings, don't think troll - just a person who USED:mad: to think well of Nader.

[dudalb]

Wait, I thought Obama supporters were the True Believers...

This Nader is clearly a false prophet who must be sentenced to death.


All political parties have their share of True Believers, who will blindly support anything their candidate says or does.
The difference between OBama and Nader is that Obama's following does not consist entirely of the True Believers, wheras as far as I can see, Nader's following has very few who are not into the Nader personality cult.

[Axiom_Blade]

All political parties have their share of True Believers, who will blindly support anything their candidate says or does.
The difference between OBama and Nader is that Obama's following does not consist entirely of the True Believers, wheras as far as I can see, Nader's following has very few who are not into the Nader personality cult.

Evidence?

[Gene L]

I think Nader supporters have about the same influence as Bob Barr suporters. By all means, vote for whomever. Change the world.

[Highly Selassie]

What has he done since then?
He rapped on Da Ali G Show.

[Freddy]

Hitler is in my encyclopedia and dictionary. Maybe I should write him in. Thread over.:D

[chipmunk stew]

He rapped on Da Ali G Show.
He did? Booyakasa! I'll have to re-think my vote now.

[h.g.Whiz]

Hitler is in my encyclopedia and dictionary. Maybe I should write him in. Thread over.:D

Too late he 's dead.

[h.g.Whiz]

That's a stupid way of picking a president.

Nader should have stopped when he began running as an independent. The third parties nominate someone else and it dilutes the radical vote.

Of course, I may still vote for him as a parody protest, but I find him to be a very unremarkable candidate.

Oh, and his website sucks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Show me where I mention how I pick a president. Never mind thats a rhetorical question because I didn't. I had no idea who Ralph Nader was 3months ago til I watched a speech on FSTV(freespeechTV). The title of the program was called Keynote. It was inspiring. I thought wow why don't someone like him run for president. I aol searched his name. It was the results from my aol search is how I found out he was running, and that it wasn't his first time. After that I wondered why the my media admits that neither Barrac nor McCain is is worth a dang but continues as if there is no alternative when the is in Nader. Both Obama and McCain is scared to give a speech in second life. I bet Nader would. Anyways I started this post to inform people like myself who have been gulity of living under a rock and have never heard of Nader. I say any that dislikes Nader is someone who condones corporate welfare. I find it outrageous that corporations have better rights than humans. Our courts decided that a 100 years ago that corporations have human rights. Except humans can go bankrupt. People speek harsh against our gov. but its corporate gov. who is the real enemy.

I'm voting Ralph Nader. If you don't Know who he is Look up his name in the dictionary. If you don't know of his accomplishments look in the the World Book Encyclopedia. He appears in both 20 years ago. You won't find the other two candidates there. The only text that I have that doesn't have him is school text book on U.S. History, its funny that it does mentions all the things he did but does not mention his name. Its as if our government is taking credit for improvements they were forced to make because of Nader

[KoihimeNakamura]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Show me where I mention how I pick a president.


voting Ralph Nader. If you don't Know who he is Look up his name in the dictionary. If you don't know of his accomplishments look in the the World Book Encyclopedia.

Becareful of what you say.

The title of the program was called Keynote. It was inspiring. I thought wow why don't someone like him run for president. I aol searched his name. It was the results from my aol search is how I found out he was running, and that it wasn't his first time. After that I wondered why the my media admits that neither Barrac nor McCain is is worth a dang

Because only a few people feel your way. Thankfully.

but continues as if there is no alternative when the is in Nader. Both Obama and McCain is scared to give a speech in second life.

scared? Sane is a better word.


I bet Nader would. Anyways I started this post to inform people like myself who have been gulity of living under a rock and have never heard of Nader. I say any that dislikes Nader is someone who condones corporate welfare.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.


Oh, that's funny. That's funny.

I find it outrageous that corporations have better rights than humans. Our courts decided that a 100 years ago that corporations have human rights. Except humans can go bankrupt. People speek harsh against our gov. but its corporate gov. who is the real enemy.

Corps CAN go bankrupt. A lot do, but not on the higher and larger levels.



I'm voting Ralph Nader. If you don't Know who he is Look up his name in the dictionary. If you don't know of his accomplishments look in the the World Book Encyclopedia. He appears in both 20 years ago. You won't find the other two candidates there.

Let's explain how you can get 'this is why you vote for him?'

It's basic, I know, but useful. 'I'm voting Ralph Nader'. is the thesis, the beginning of the statement. The other parts SUPPORT that.

It's not an unreasonable inference to go 'I am voting for Ralph Nader only for these reasons'

The only text that I have that doesn't have him is school text book on U.S. History, its funny that it does mentions all the things he did but does not mention his name. Its as if our government is taking credit for improvements they were forced to make because of Nader

They say 'consumer adovcates' at least in my book.

[Freddy]

Too late he 's dead.

And Nader may as well be, for all the effect he's going to have on this election. I mean no disrespect to Nader; I greatly respect his work as a consumer advocate. But he is a total nonfactor in this election.

[Axiom_Blade]

And Nader may as well be, for all the effect he's going to have on this election. I mean no disrespect to Nader; I greatly respect his work as a consumer advocate. But he is a total nonfactor in this election.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. Barring some miracle, our next president will be named McCain or Obama.

However, nothing will be changed by voting "lesser of two evils". The last 25 years have shown this. The whole point of Nader's campaigns are "building a movement".

In each state, he fights to get onto the ballot. He fights undemocratic, unethical laws to keep him off ballots, paving the way for independent candidates of the future.
He highlights important issues that the two corporate candidates won't discuss, helping to keep them part of the public discourse.
He points out flaws in Obama, helping to keep him honest, and speaking for the people.

He is there, constantly reminding us of our civic duties. Reminding us that we can do more than just vote every 4 years.
We can petition our representatives, propose new laws and get them onto ballots, organize, protest...even run for president.

[UserGoogol]

Unfortunately, you're probably right. Barring some miracle, our next president will be named McCain or Obama.

However, nothing will be changed by voting "lesser of two evils". The last 25 years have shown this. The whole point of Nader's campaigns are "building a movement".

I would say he has not done very well at building a movement. He's broken off from the Green Party and many in the larger progressive movement have also distanced themselves from him. If you want to promote grassroots politics, the logical thing to do seems to be to promote grassroots politics, to make highly visible attempts to influence the political scope of politics, promoting the more progressive candidates and lobbying for more liberal bills and whatnot. (Such as what he did before he started running for president.) I fail to see how the goal of reminding us that we can do more than just vote every four years is served by having him run every four years. I think that if anything, Nader's campaigns send the message that grassroots politics is hopeless, and that the political system is so corrupt that the only thing we can try to do is cling to the hope that we can somehow kick both parties out of office and start the system anew, which is a very dangerous line of thinking.

I do think that compromise is a highly important virtue in politics, as I have said before. Of course, the other extreme is not good either, and I do think that Democrats may perhaps have gone too far in the other direction in the last twenty-five years. But the goal should be to find the happy medium between perfectionism and surrender, to aspire to the best but embrace mediocrity if that's the best you can realistically get. My impression of Obama from fairly early in the primaries has been "just pragmatic enough but no more so" although since it's hard to pin down the optimal level of pragmatism it might just be wishful thinking.

[Axiom_Blade]

I think that if anything, Nader's campaigns send the message that grassroots politics is hopeless, and that the political system is so corrupt that the only thing we can try to do is cling to the hope that we can somehow kick both parties out of office and start the system anew, which is a very dangerous line of thinking.

Well, you got the second part right. Nader has never said or implied that grassroots politics are "hopeless"; indeed, it's the only thing that can save us from the mess we're in.

Why is kicking the parties out "a very dangerous line of thinking"? Isn't that what you do in a democracy? If you don't like how things are being done, vote 'em out.
Actually, I don't think that Nader or anyone else thinks that both parties will get voted out. Democratic Party replaced with a stronger opposition party, that sort of thing.
It happened before, when the Republican Party replaced the Whigs.

[Nosaj]

Everyone,

I think Axiom_Blade makes some good points, and I am of the mind to agree. For my own part, I know that most people do not take him seriously, but I believe that I understand why he is doing what he is doing, and I admire the man for all that he has done for this country. The list of his accomplishments are staggering, e.g., the Clean Air Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the EPA, the Freedom of Information Act, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, OSHA, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Wholesome Meat Act, et cetera. While I have been leaning towards Obama, I am seriously considering voting for Nader for a variety of reasons. One reason is that I am extremely unhappy with the current electorial system, especially how easily constituencies can be marginalized, and I applaud anyone who attempts to change the system, or at the very least, point out the need for reform. It is very dificult to try and get people that are so used to a two-party dominated format to understand why it is important for people like Nader to voice their opinions, and more than that, to take action. People often talk a lot about change, but then do very little about it. Nader, for all of his faults, is at least being actively involved in our political system in order to get others involved instead of just complaining about it.

As for the 2000 election, in my opinion, Nader is more of a scapegoat than anything, even though he was one of the factors that contributed to Gore's loss in Florida. Essentially, while Nader is often accused of being the spoiler who got Bush elected in 2000 by siphoning off at least 543 votes from Gore in Florida, this accusation does not take into account a number of other equally important factors such as (i) the fact that Browne, Buchanan, Phillips, and Hagelin all recieved more than 543 votes; (ii) voters who were disenfranchised; (iii) voting systems and procedures that failed; (iv) Democrats who voted for Bush or not at all; and (v) the party-line United States Supreme Court vote declaring Bush the winner (CNN (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/FL/frameset.exclude.html), capg (http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html)). Certainly Nader's 96,837 votes in Florida contributed to Gore's loss, but I think that taking into account the various other factors that were involved, including the few listed above, it is neither fair nor accurate to say that Nader was the sole reason for Gore's loss. Another point that I think is even more important is that, regardless of anyone's personal view of Nader, as an American citizen, he has the right to run for public office for whatever reason, and to me, the fact that he is excerising his constitutional right to run for president in order to bring certain issues to the table is not worthy of such scorn.

Of course, this is just my view, and I realize that the majority of people, especially Democrats, will not agree with me and say that a vote for Nader would be a wasted vote; but, to me, a vote for Nader would not be a wasted vote because I take voting seriously in my own way. In my case, I am not a "Democrat" or a "Republican." I am an independent that happens to really like Obama, as well as Nader, i.e., I like Obama's composure and message of change, but I like the issues that Nader brings to the table and his stance on those issues. The bottom line is that for me, it is not about voting strategically, it is about voting for the candidate who I feel is the closest in regard to representing my own views and vision for the future (plus, I am unhappy with the two-party dominated system that we currently have, and I support election reforms that would make it easier for third-party and independent candidates to simply get their names on the ballot). Additionally, voting for any candidate whose views and policies you agree with and support is not throwing your vote away. In fact, I think quite the opposite is true. Voting for any candidate whose views and policies you agree with and support is exercising the right to vote responsibly. If anything, I would say that not voting is throwing your vote away, but that is just my opinion.

Sincerely,

Jason

[Robaato]

And now, another view of the 2000 election...

What if Ralph Nader's goal was not to get elected, but to punish the Democrats (http://dragon.soc.qc.cuny.edu/Staff/levine/Ralph-Nader-As-Suicide-Bomber.html)?

[Rob Lister]

And now, another view of the 2000 election...

What if Ralph Nader's goal was not to get elected, but to punish the Democrats (http://dragon.soc.qc.cuny.edu/Staff/levine/Ralph-Nader-As-Suicide-Bomber.html)?

then so be it. let the public decide?

Seems to me that if the race is so close that nader can spoil it, it's too close to the margin of polling [voting] error to matter. It's a tie. For the first time in my political interest, I don't give a crap who wins...except I think nadar would get less legislation passed, so I want him.

Go ahead, call me crazy.

No, I won't actually vote for him. I'll do as I promised and vote for upchurch. He won't win either but at least I voted for a guy that sez it like he thinks it...even if that aint the way it is.

[Nosaj]

Robaato,

What if Ralph Nader's goal was not to get elected, but to punish the Democrats (http://dragon.soc.qc.cuny.edu/Staff/levine/Ralph-Nader-As-Suicide-Bomber.html)?

An interesting read. My intial thoughts are that it's plausible, but highly speculative.

Jason

[UserGoogol]

Well, you got the second part right. Nader has never said or implied that grassroots politics are "hopeless"; indeed, it's the only thing that can save us from the mess we're in.

I don't think he intentionally implied it, but the message is there. If the both political parties are deemed as merely either "more evil" and "less evil," then what's the point in trying to work from the grassroots and protest and push your own views? If you try to push for change from the bottom up through protesting or think tanks or whatever, the politicians would just twirl their moustaches in contempt and laugh maniacally at your proletarian tomfoolery, because evil doesn't care what you think. Now, I don't think Nader means quite this when he says that voting Democratic is voting for the lesser of two evils, but that's the message that's being sent.

Why is kicking the parties out "a very dangerous line of thinking"? Isn't that what you do in a democracy? If you don't like how things are being done, vote 'em out.

Yes, but to feel that things are absolutely horrible and absolutely hopeless might encourage revolutionary change, which is bad. Revolutions lead to dictatorship too often for them to be worth doing except in the worst of situations. (Nader is not at all a revolutionary, but again, the "lesser of two evils" rhetoric doesn't exactly encourage compromise.) Democracy depends on compromise, of people to be able to work together to develop a system which is satisfying to as many people as possible. For the people who are currently getting the short shrift to get angry can destabilize things and cause suffering for everyone.

Nader needs to be more mellow. Focus on getting seats in Congress in the more liberal areas part of the country, build up support and in the meanwhile try to push things from the grassroots level. Politics needs to be mellow to function best.

Actually, I don't think that Nader or anyone else thinks that both parties will get voted out. Democratic Party replaced with a stronger opposition party, that sort of thing.
It happened before, when the Republican Party replaced the Whigs.

I don't think the Whig party provides a particularly viable roadmap for Nader to gain victory. The Whig Party more or less pulled itself apart due to being split on slavery. The existence of third-party abolitionist parties probably helped build up the infrastructure for the Republican Party, but if Nader's plan is to wait for the Democrats to explode, that's not very practical.

But yeah, it's entirely possible for third parties to succeed. I just think that Nader gets too worked up about it, and that getting people worked up can lead to problems down the road.

ETA: I'm probably being a bit unfair. In 2004 I would've probably voted for Nader if I had been a few days older (my birthday was just on the line) (it should be noted I live in Massachusetts, so my vote has very little influence over the election so I'm free to vote my conscience without worrying about the spoiler effect) but of later I've found him just to kind of rub me the wrong way for whatever reason).

[quarky]

Nader was right. Gore was owned by the same crap as the pubs. Christ, look who his running mate was: Leiberman. It is tragic that Nader got done the way he did. What a shame that we can't or won't ever elect someone like him.

The 2 party system is a sham. It shouldn't even qualify as democracy.

[Axiom_Blade]

I don't think he intentionally implied it, but the message is there. If the both political parties are deemed as merely either "more evil" and "less evil," then what's the point in trying to work from the grassroots and protest and push your own views? If you try to push for change from the bottom up through protesting or think tanks or whatever, the politicians would just twirl their moustaches in contempt and laugh maniacally at your proletarian tomfoolery, because evil doesn't care what you think. Now, I don't think Nader means quite this when he says that voting Democratic is voting for the lesser of two evils, but that's the message that's being sent.

I don't think Nader is saying what you think he's saying.
His contention is that ALL of the major victories of the leftists have resulted from grassroots agitation and protest. The two forces pulling on a politician are populist and corporate. If the people don't make demands on the candidate, then all of the pull will be from one direction...the corporations.

It's not that the Democrats or Republicans are "evil"...it's that they act in their own best interests. The ones who are honest and stick to their principles don't get very far, because the system is rigged against them.

So, what Nader's campaign does, is send a very distinct message to the Democrats: either address our concerns, or we will vote for someone else. John Kerry could've taken Nader's votes very easily: by adopting Nader's platform. He chose not to.

Unfortunately, many have the same view of Nader that you do; that his message is essentially a cynical one. That's understandable. If the paradigm you're coming from only has room for two parties, to hear that they're both irreconcilably corrupt seems like a hopeless message. However, that's not his message. His message is that we must all become activists, we must organize and work hard to take this country back. The real "Hope and Change" is with Nader, not Obama.


Yes, but to feel that things are absolutely horrible and absolutely hopeless might encourage revolutionary change, which is bad. Revolutions lead to dictatorship too often for them to be worth doing except in the worst of situations. (Nader is not at all a revolutionary, but again, the "lesser of two evils" rhetoric doesn't exactly encourage compromise.) Democracy depends on compromise, of people to be able to work together to develop a system which is satisfying to as many people as possible. For the people who are currently getting the short shrift to get angry can destabilize things and cause suffering for everyone.

Yes, I agree 100%! That's why I support Nader.
Think if things keep going as they are, and the only alternatives voters have to turn to are people like Bob Barr and Ron Paul.

I want progress and improvement, but I want it in the most stable, sane way possible. Of the candidates, Nader is the most logical choice.


Nader needs to be more mellow. Focus on getting seats in Congress in the more liberal areas part of the country, build up support and in the meanwhile try to push things from the grassroots level. Politics needs to be mellow to function best.

Politics...mellow?! Not in the USA!
And Nader's enemies are certainly not mellow. I saw this in 2004. If Nader started to get any serious power, they would move to crush him in an instant. He must go for the jugular as best he can.

The best, and most visible way to do this is a presidential run. It would be much easier for the Democrats to defeat him in a congressional campaign: he would get less publicity and less support. I also think they would view it as a sign of weakness, like they finally had him on the run.



I don't think the Whig party provides a particularly viable roadmap for Nader to gain victory. The Whig Party more or less pulled itself apart due to being split on slavery. The existence of third-party abolitionist parties probably helped build up the infrastructure for the Republican Party, but if Nader's plan is to wait for the Democrats to explode, that's not very practical.

He's not "waiting" for anything. That's why he's running for office.
I think he mostly avoids talking about this sort of thing, preferring to let running mates like Camejo and Gonzalez address it.

Sometimes I think that if/when the Democrats implode, it'll be a long way off. But I often wonder what'll happen if Obama gets elected, and he turns out to not be the Golden Boy that his fans think he is.


But yeah, it's entirely possible for third parties to succeed. I just think that Nader gets too worked up about it, and that getting people worked up can lead to problems down the road.

I've never seen any of Nader's supporters "worked up". If anything, we're too mellow.

Have you ever heard one of his speeches? He's quite smart and articulate, but he's not very good at getting people fired up. At all.

[h.g.Whiz]

I went to board reader and found out that Nader posting activity tripled on the same day that I created this thread. Below is the link


http://boardreader.com/s/ralph+nader.html?x=0&d=0&group_mode=post

[applecorped]

Ralph Nader is in my dictionary and encyclopedia

Then let him out.

[Whiplash]

A great consumer advocate does not a great president make.

How can anyone take a person seriously who actually believed that there was no substantial difference between Bush and Gore?

Nader threw himself under the bus with that line.

And now, many on the left want to say that there is no difference between McCain and Bush which is almost (but not quite) as ridiculous.

[chipmunk stew]

And now, many on the left want to say that there is no difference between McCain and Bush which is almost (but not quite) as ridiculous.
Really? His policy positions are almost identical to Bush's. It's a fact that there's no substantial difference.

[h.g.Whiz]

Ralph Nader is in my dictionary, encyclopedia, and on my TV appearing on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific tonight.

[Ausmerican]

Ralph Nader is in my dictionary, encyclopedia, and on my TV appearing on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific tonight.

Is he more than a footnote in your dictionary and encyclopedia? If so, treasure them. Because he will never be more than a footnote in Presidential politics.

[HereticHulk]

A great consumer advocate does not a great president make.

How do you know this?

How can anyone take a person seriously who actually believed that there was no substantial difference between Bush and Gore?

Nader threw himself under the bus with that line.

I'd be curious to hear what context Nader was saying what you claim re: Gore and Bush?

But we know there is hardly any major differences between Obama and McCain.

[HereticHulk]

Nader was right. Gore was owned by the same crap as the pubs. Christ, look who his running mate was: Leiberman. It is tragic that Nader got done the way he did. What a shame that we can't or won't ever elect someone like him.

The 2 party system is a sham. It shouldn't even qualify as democracy.

I love you man! :)

[boloboffin]

Ralph Nader on Red State Update:

ahgzB1JS2R8

Ralph Nader Meets Mr. Slaw:

g576ap60WtI

Ralph Nader On Anal Flutter:

nYKyts6EdSw

Now don't watch that last one first, or the other ones won't be as funny.

[TheJim]

I voted for Nader in 2000 in Florida and not only that but I convinced about 10 others to do the same and I did not regret this until very recently. With hindsight being 20/20 I would of course have voted for Gore and if it was the Gore of 2002 and on I would have voted for him or hell if it was Gore with out Lieberman I would have voted for him. I am a Lieberman hater from way back.

It was not until this election that I have regretted the vote. Nader was a hero of mine and I believe his actions pre 2000, while not always agreeing, have been that of one of the most patriotic men in modern history. But his actions since than have been anything but. He has thrown away his reputation to the point that he is ineffective as a consumer advocate. He either lies or burns bridges with everyone around him. He claimed to want to build a strong third party but gave up on that. He does not seem to understand American Politics becoming the embodiment of perfect as the enemy of good, does not realize that 3rd parties really only work in bringing up issues that the big parties will coop and that is the only way they can work in a winner take all system.

[dudalb]

I voted for Nader in 2000 in Florida and not only that but I convinced about 10 others to do the same and I did not regret this until very recently. With hindsight being 20/20 I would of course have voted for Gore and if it was the Gore of 2002 and on I would have voted for him or hell if it was Gore with out Lieberman I would have voted for him. I am a Lieberman hater from way back.

It was not until this election that I have regretted the vote. Nader was a hero of mine and I believe his actions pre 2000, while not always agreeing, have been that of one of the most patriotic men in modern history. But his actions since than have been anything but. He has thrown away his reputation to the point that he is ineffective as a consumer advocate. He either lies or burns bridges with everyone around him. He claimed to want to build a strong third party but gave up on that. He does not seem to understand American Politics becoming the embodiment of perfect as the enemy of good, does not realize that 3rd parties really only work in bringing up issues that the big parties will coop and that is the only way they can work in a winner take all system.
Nader is not doing anything to build a political party. His is not organizing people to run for local ,state, and congressional office...the stone foundation of any political movement. He just shows up every 4 years on his presdential ego trip.
Frankly, most of the political left has written Nader off as a egomaniac, and almost every Naderite I have met is into the Nader personality cult, which is a awful lot like that of Ron Paul.

[h.g.Whiz]

Ralph Nader will be on The O'Reilly Factor about 8:25 est .